Connector Alternative Comparison Worksheet

An alternative-connector review becomes difficult to trace when the original drawing is in one email, the candidate specification is in another and sample comments contain only the word ‘fits’. This worksheet keeps those references beside the requirement being reviewed. It is designed for a buyer and an engineer preparing a specific substitution proposal.

Use the existing connector-alternative verification guide for the review process. This resource provides the editable record: a blank comparison, a complete fictional example and fields for the decision authority. It does not select an alternative or calculate compatibility.

Download the comparison workbook

Download the editable English comparison worksheet. The Blank comparison sheet is the working copy. The Example sheet shows an intentionally unresolved candidate, including a documented difference and missing evidence. All EX references and values in that example are invented. They do not identify a real cross-brand pair or establish a supplier capability.

Amber cells are editable. The final column checks whether a row has its required fields and whether its record ID is duplicated. ‘Recorded’ means that the fields have been filled. It says nothing about the accuracy of the evidence, technical suitability or permission to buy production parts. A cell containing ‘Unknown’ can therefore produce a Recorded check while the engineering question remains open.

Define one proposed configuration per copy

Start with the assembly number and revision, original housing and terminal references, exact mating counterpart and proposed candidate references. Include suffixes and applicable drawing revisions. State whether the equipment-side part stays unchanged. Replacing a complete mating pair and substituting only one half are different proposals and should have separate records.

Give each candidate its own workbook copy when several options are being compared. A single row should not describe one candidate's housing and a different candidate's terminal. Identify the permitted substitution level, wire construction and populated positions before reviewing differences. If the original part has not been identified, record that uncertainty rather than treating a family name or photograph as the approved baseline.

The workbook has room for ten comparison records. Use additional rows only after extending the record-check formulas and their duplicate-ID bounds. Keep each ID in its own cell and follow a consistent naming convention. The equality check is case-insensitive, so use one spelling for each record.

Record evidence at the requirement level

Each row separates the requirement, baseline evidence, candidate evidence, difference or unknown, validation action and owner. This structure makes it possible to follow an unanswered question without rewriting the original requirement.

Manufacturer documentation provides the starting evidence for its identified products. For example, the Molex iGrid application specification directs users to the applicable sales drawing for product form and dimensions. That illustrates why a comparison should identify the document as well as the part. Its instructions do not establish interchangeability with another manufacturer's product.

Keep a copy of each reviewed document with the comparison package, including the revision or issue date. A web link alone may later show a changed document. Use separate rows for the interface, termination, material or finish, ratings under stated conditions and installation constraints when they create distinct questions. Do not copy the original part's rating into a blank candidate field.

Follow the fictional example through to an open decision

The Example sheet proposes EX-CAND-H49 with EX-CAND-T49 against the fictional existing header EX-HDR-49. The existing header remains in the equipment. The proposed housing is not approved merely because its nominal circuit arrangement matches the baseline description.

Five records show how to keep the review useful. The interface row requests dimensional evidence and an identified mating sample. The enclosure row records the 2 mm envelope difference and assigns a clearance review. The termination row asks for the candidate's processing document for the specified wire. The finish row leaves the candidate finish unknown. The electrical-use row asks for evidence covering the stated application rather than adopting the baseline value.

Every populated example row is complete as a record, but the manual decision remains ‘Pending. No production substitution authorized.’ The reviewer field names the customer design authority, and the scope field retains the exact candidate and mating counterpart. A future evaluation-only decision should identify the allowed sample quantity or purpose separately from production use. Attach the evidence that closes each question and preserve the previous workbook revision.

Keep approval separate from completeness

The decision area records the disposition, authorized configuration, conditions, evidence reference and responsible person. Fill it after the responsible authority decides. Neither a full table nor a successful first mating should silently change that record. A material, terminal, mating-part or drawing revision change can affect earlier evidence and should be reviewed against the actual approved scope.

This approach follows the general distinction between configuration identification, change control and status records described in NASA's configuration-management guidance. The workbook is a practical project template, not a NASA form or a certified approval system. Use your own controlled process where one applies.

Frequently asked questions

Does the worksheet tell me which JST or Molex alternative is compatible?

No. It organizes one identified proposal and its evidence. The fictional entries are deliberately not real cross-references. Compatibility and application suitability require review of the exact parts, mating arrangement and operating conditions.

Can I use it when a candidate drawing is missing?

Yes. Enter Unknown and name the document needed, its owner and the next action. The row can be complete as a record while the comparison remains unresolved. Do not replace the missing information with the original connector's specification.

Can a Recorded row be used as a production approval?

No. Recorded checks field presence and ID duplication only. Keep the authorized decision, exact scope and supporting evidence in the separate manual decision area.

Send a candidate with its open questions

Review compatible connector alternatives, then send Zeakka the completed comparison and referenced drawings. Include the existing mating part, candidate references, wire configuration, quantity and questions requiring supplier evidence. Zeakka coordinates sourcing and proposal review with suitable factories. Your responsible engineering authority approves the substitution for its defined application.